Mumbai Court January 2016 Judgments
Sudhir Waman Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, A.C.J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants - original accused Nos.1 and 2 against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2009 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge - 1, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik in Sessions Case No.10 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant i.e accused No.1 - Sudhir Waman Pawar for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant - Sudhir Waman Pawar was sentenced to life imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1500/-, in default, R.I. for one year. Further the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant i.e accused No.2 - Keda Waman Pawar under Section 326 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default R.I. for one year....
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Vijay Tamhanekar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
G.S. Patel, J. 1. Both Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writs of Habeas Corpus. We would not ordinarily have thought it appropriate to deliver a common judgment in matters such as these. However, as the following narrative shows, this is inevitable and necessary. 2. At the broadest level, in Petitions relating to matters of preventive detention, the Court is not concerned with the actual merits of the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority. The Court limits itself, as it must do, to the sufficiency and adequacy of the decision-making process. If that process be found to be in accordance with the law, one that is well settled by now, the order of preventive detention will undoubtedly be upheld. On the other hand, when the Court find a lacuna or inadequacy in the decision-making process, it will set aside the order of detention. 3. Writ Petition No. 3129 of 2015 seeks the quashing of an order dated 10th July 2015 passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Gulabrao Ingole Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. The present appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Hingoli in Special Child Case No.09 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 02/04/2015 for the offences punishable under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act") and section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under section 4 of POCSO Act. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. It was directed that in case the fine amount is recovered, compensation of Rs.20,000/- be paid to the victim child. 3. Case of the prosecution is that on 23/3/2014 at village Jawala Bk., Tq. Sengaon, the appellant has committed rape i.e. penetrative sexual assault on a five years old mino...
Tag this Judgment!Tika Bahadur Bhandari Vs. State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the respondent. 3. Heard finally, by consent. 4. This Revision Application challenges the order dated 18/06/2015 passed in Sessions Case No.19/2012 by Sessions Judge, Panaji thereby directing framing of charge against the revision applicant and his co-accused for offences punishable under Section 392 and 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to prima facie make out the offences alleged against the applicant. He submits that it is well settled law that if the material collected during the course of investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish the basic ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits, relying upon the cases of State of U.P....
Tag this Judgment!Uday Singh Deshraj Rajput Vs. Film Craft Production (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The above Suit was filed by the Plaintiff on 11th November, 2013 through his Advocate Ms. Rekha K. Mehta for a declaration that he is the owner of the script and screen play of the film Krrish-3 and that the Defendants are not entitled to use the said script and the screen play for their film Krrish-3 or for any other film. 2. At the time of the filing of the above Suit, the Plaintiff had not paid the requisite Court fees. Instead the Advocate for the Plaintiff on 26th October, 2013 made an endorsement on the docket of the Plaint that The Plaintiff is residing in remote village in Madhya Pradesh. The Plaintiff is urgently required to file the Suit otherwise his claim would be prejudiced. The film would be released in few days. In response, the Prothonotary and Senior Master endorsed : without prejudice granted two weeks time to the Plaintiff to pay the Court fee. Interestingly, the endorsement of the Prothonotary and Senior Master is dated 25 th October, 2013. Again ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh V. Amesur Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Additional ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
G.S. Patel, J. 1. This Writ Petition No. 3150 of 2015 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus in respect of one Jeetu Shankarlal Chhapru ( Chhapru ), the subject of an order of preventive detention dated 9th July 2015 issued by the 2nd Respondent, the Detaining Authority, under Section 3(1)(i) the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( COFEPOSA ). The Petitioner is Chhapru s cousin. 2. The case against Chhapru is this. On 4th October 2014, acting on intelligence received, officers of the Air Intelligence Unit ( AIU ) intercepted Chhapru, holding an Indian passport, on his arrival from Bangkok on Bangkok Airways Flight PG 733, after he cleared himself through the green channel at Customs in the arrival hall of Terminal T2 at the Chhatrapati Shivaji International ( CSI ) Airport, Mumbai. On being questioned, Chhapru denied having any contraband goods or gold in his baggage or on his person. Dissatisfied wit...
Tag this Judgment!Pralhad @ Pratap Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, at length. 2. In Crime No. 160/2015 registered at Police Station, Bhandara, for offence punishable under Sections 408, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant is seeking grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The State Government established 'Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas Mahamandal' for upliftment of "Matang" community, which falls in Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. It is known fact that though notified as Scheduled Caste, "Matang" community could not take advantage of a plethora of facilities, reservation, financial aids etc. meant for Scheduled Caste. This community is still mired in appalling poverty, too backward and a large number of its members have still been engaged in their traditional profession i.e. blowing trumpet or bugle for earning their livelihood. 4. One of the members of the Legislative Assembly, by name, Shri Ramesh Kadam, a political appointee-who was made Chairman of the Corporation, in connivance ...
Tag this Judgment!Tika Bahadur Bhandari Vs. State of Goa, through the Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice for the respondent. 3. Heard finally, by consent. 4. This Revision Application challenges the order dated 18/06/2015 passed in Sessions Case No.19/2012 by Sessions Judge, Panaji thereby directing framing of charge against the revision applicant and his co-accused for offences punishable under Section 392 and 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is not even an iota of evidence to prima facie make out the offences alleged against the applicant. He submits that it is well settled law that if the material collected during the course of investigation, taken at its face value, does not reveal commission of any offence or does not establish the basic ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the accused has to be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits, relying upon the cases of State of U.P....
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. All the present Criminal Appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order dated 08/11/2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.57 of 2000. Therefore all the three appeals are decided by the present common judgment. 3. Present 4 appellants alongwith other 2 accused were charged of the commission of the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded after trial however came to the conclusion that out of the six accused, present four appellants i.e. accused nos.1,2, 3 and 5 have participated in the offence. Accused no.4 Ashok Marakwad was acquitted, while accused no.6 - Prakash Waghmare died during the pendency of the trial. According to the learned Sessions Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Farida Imram Chamundi Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Additi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges an order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( COFEPOSA for short) passed on 17th July 2015 and served on the detenu on 4th August 2015. 2. The Petitioner is the wife of detenu. 3. A few dates are required to be referred for appreciating the ground of challenge, viz., delay in passing the detention order. The grounds of detention in support of the order of detention recite the dates. By Air India Flight AI-964, the detenu arrived in Mumbai from Hyderabad on 23rd September 2014. After clearing immigration, one Ms. Shahin Farooq Patel was intercepted by the Officers of the Air Intelligence Unit. She was subjected to a personal search in the presence of a gazetted officer and two independent panchas. The search yielded the recovery of a packet wrapped in transparent cello-tape from an arti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »